Gay marriage amendment splits state lawmakers, but not by party

President Bush's announcement drew mixed responses from Pennsylvania lawmakers that cut across party lines.

Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Pat Toomey, both Republicans, said they support the amendment. So did Democratic Rep. Tim Holden, although he added that it should not be a top priority for Congress.

FOR THE RECORD - (Published Thursday, February 26, 2004) A story in Tuesday's paper misstated the reason for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey's concern over the movement to legalize gay marriage. Toomey said the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires states to recognize contracts from other states, could force state governments to recognize same-sex unions from other states.

On the other side of the issue, Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Jim Greenwood, both Republicans, said they opposed the amendment, as did Democrat Rep. Joe Hoeffel.

A spokesman for Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-6th District, said he was undecided. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-11th District, could not be immediately reached for comment.

Regardless of their position on the amendment, most of the lawmakers said they opposed gay marriage. Santorum, Specter, Holden and Kanjorski voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which gives states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. Greenwood did not vote on the act. Toomey, Hoeffel and Gerlach were not in Congress at the time.

Santorum said Congress had no choice given the actions by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and San Francisco's mayor.

"This is an issue just like 9-11," said Santorum, the Senate's No. 3 GOP leader. "We didn't decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?"

Specter, however, said the amendment was premature because the states are still dealing with the issue and can act faster than an amendment process. Specter said he would only consider an amendment "if the states cannot preserve the traditions of marriage between a man and a women."

Greenwood, R-8th District, said the issue should be left to the states regardless. "There's no such thing as a federal marriage license," he said.

Hoeffel, D-13th District, said he opposes gay marriages but also opposes an amendment banning them as "divisive and intolerant."

"We should never add an amendment to our Constitution that subtracts rights from Americans," Hoeffel said.

The issue could be a factor in the Pennsylvania Senate race, where Toomey and Hoeffel are seeking to oust Specter.